4.3 Article

Bias and error in estimates of mean shape in geometric morphometrics

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
卷 44, 期 6, 页码 665-683

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0047-2484(03)00047-2

关键词

shape coordinates; EDMA; tangent space; procrustes; moment estimates; sampling experiments; reflection invariance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sampling experiments were performed to investigate mean square error and bias in estimates of mean shape produced by different geometric morphometric methods. The experiments use the isotropic error model, which assumes equal and independent variation at each landmark. The case of three landmarks in the plane (i.e., triangles) was emphasized because it could be investigated systematically and the results displayed on the printed page. The amount of error in the estimates was displayed as RMSE surfaces over the space of all possible configurations of three landmarks. Patterns of bias were shown as vector fields over this same space. Experiments were also performed using particular combinations of four or more landmarks in both two and three dimensions. It was found that the generalized Procrustes analysis method produced estimates with the least error and no pattern of bias. Averages of Bookstein shape coordinates performed well if the longest edge was used as the baseline. The method of moments (Stoyan, 1990, Model. Biomet. J. 32, 843) used in EDMA (Lele, 1993, Math. Geol. 25, 573) exhibits larger errors. When variation is not small, it also shows a pattern of bias for isosceles triangles with one side much shorter than the other two and for triangles whose vertices are approximately collinear causing them to resemble their own reflections. Similar problems were found for the log-distance method of Rao and Suryawanshi (1996, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 95, 4121). These results and their implications for the application of different geometric morphometric methods are discussed. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据